What country would you rule in 1939-45 and why?
 

So many choices. what would you have done different?

Switzerland. And I wouldn't even wanted to rule. A small bank there will be enough to me...

Germany, to stop war and death that came from there.

Seems like the obvious answer...

It would have slowed things down, though the Bankers wanted World War, they would have found another way to get it e.g. World War between the USA and The British Empire :2 cents:

I am going to be a little bad ass.

I would rule Germany, do different military decisions and conquer whole Eurasia. I would also leave the regular Nazi shit, I am just conqueror, not asshole.

Would I do it for real? Nope, but neither I would rule some country at that time, since it's past, you know.

Germany

Hmmm .......... what would I have done different ......... probably wouldn't have annexed the Sudetenland and Austria, I'd rethink occupying Czechoslovakia, invading Poland wasn't such a great idea, what else - hmm, attacking the Dutch, French, Belgians I'm not sure I'd have done either. Bombing England was pretty tacky. Really really baaaaaaaaaad idea launching a sneak attack on Russia. Rounding up Jews was pretty rude, sending them to concentration camps, then there was that whole nutty Final Solution where we exterminated 6 million of them, declaring war on the United States might not have been the smartest thing .......... killing the mentally retarded and ill was gauche, same for the homosexuals. I'd probably have seriously reconsidered the whole Master Race ideology.

But perhaps I'm just quibbling. It seemed to work out well for the Germans.

germany really got all built up again and they are now super power again. only bad for them they don't have nukes

"Deutschland uber alles" for me. I would have let Rommel (the Desert Fox) control military strategy. I would have rounded up as many Jews as possible. I'm sure Ashkenazi Jews can pretty much figure out anything. There woulda been trains but they would be first class tickets ending at German think tanks. They hold the largest percentage of Nobel prizes. Plus I would have supported both Valkyries (The Wagnerian and the Stauffenbergan) .

Don't die for your country let that other son of a bitch die for his

Super power with 62,756 people in army?

Although German abandoned conscription few years ago, there are still millions of soldiers in reserve for years to come.

like in most of the serious countries. Info that I can find is next: German reserve personnel 144,000

compared to US: 559,244
Russia: 2,035,000
China: 800,000
UK: 121,800

Hopefully, Germany will continue to grow through economy and impact world that way.

Hitler chased the greatest collection of physicists including Einstein and other scientists out of Germany. How a complete nutjob of low intelligence accomplished what he did is fascinating, there's a Forrest Gump aspect to Adolf Hitler.

burma ....

About 15 % of the males did conscription (military option). So, if there are about 40 million men in Germany, there are millions of men in reserve fit for service.

Term reserve is used to describe different things. There is battle reserve and there is reserve that can be armed (with established structure) and there is reserve of soldiers to be used for duty and then there are men who can be drafted for service.

If there is told "reserve" besides active personnel, it is usually reserve that has established structure and weapons to provide. So basically it's gun into hand and into action.

Just pasting data I've found online, from same category for those countries. useless without nukes, anyway.

And my mistake, active soldiers: 182,620

This "nuke religion" or whatever is something that even your own army don't share. Armies don't need nukes to be effective.

Nukes are must if you are really into serious scenarios. Every country that don't have them is nothing more then local player. ..just like in real life, you can be martial expert and If I own gun , your skills are useless. You won't even come close before you are dead.

You guys seem to have some kind of obsession to be global player. Most countries have armies to protect themselves, not to hussle around world.

Martial arts are not useless if you have gun. Pretty much every special forces are taught with martial arts. You know, sometimes bullets run out in close combat. And usually the fight is not some kind of duel from distance. Maybe the martial guy comes when you sleep and snaps your neck. That is what I would do.

Germany is protecting from who? Who is planning to attack Germany?But yet, German army did attack in last decades on other countries

Yes, martial arts are useless if I am serious and I am into fight (it is called war). Special forces are taught for that kind of stuff because of close combat situations (in city,spec ops,etc..) and no one is sending spec ops in frontal war.

When you say bullet will run out that means nukes will run out. Only few are enough. Ask Japanese.They were ready to fight until that moment but surrendered very fast. Zero deaths for US that delivered them.

I really don't get it. Do you think you will be able to hide army coming to attack in 21st century? (you are talking about taking someone while sleeping).

I'm a little disappointed that this topic is thought of so lackadaisically. Either it is trivialized with conspiracy nonsense or fake it 'til you make it. Only one person made a halfway decent effort. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. 50+ million people died that should be lent more respect.

Germany is protecting itself from whoever or whatever threatens it, Russians, aliens, who cares. Situations develop fast, armies don't.

Do you mean that in "frontal war" whatever that even is, is no close combat situations? I can tell you that there is. And spec ops are used where ever necessary, maybe not in your doctrine, but everybody else does.

About nukes and Japan, you haven't used nukes after WWII, even you have had bunch of wars. And about hiding army coming to attack, like I said, most countries have armies to defend themselves, not to hussle around world. Regarding modern day tactics and strategies, those involve non-symmetrically placed troops and very fast movement. Also, as you can see from Crimea and Ukraine, there is no formal declarations of war. It is politically much harder to react with that.

I would run the north pole, then I'd make all the ice melt and rule the world!

Like I said, I would take lessons from the past to conquer the Eurasia. :)

Why do you think that every lesson is used for "good"? There are tons of WWII games that give the chance to alter history. No single one of them is focusing to "make love, not war".

You are a family of close individuals who lives in Lithuania. suddenly soldiers that you have heard lots of chatter about are screaming at you and your neighbors in a foreign tongue. You gather up your little ones say 11,8,6 and 4. this mother does all she can to keep them near her. the group is marched into the forest. This is something her brain cant accept. the firearm noise is clear and so is her dire situation. they stand in line her babies she carried in her own womb are spared none of the foul actions being done like nothing is out of the ordinary. their turn gets closer and closer to that SS Walther ppk. you are stuck trying to explain the madness. they start to cry because they now have full clarity. she holds them close and she looks in their eyes until it is done. she considers the gift of going last she now looks at her reason for existence inside that hole.

You skipped part of Germany involving its army in attacking other countries which is more important than aliens you are talking about. I am really not aware that someone will attack Germany or planing to do so. And those who can will solve it with nukes. Surrender or be nuked. Simple as that. Conventional army is pretty useless in that case. Only way you can avoid this hardcore scenario is to have own nukes so other side won't take a risk. But you don't and that is idea behind my posts on this topic. Army without them is just regional power that can't do much if serious players want something from you (me,or anyone else). Hopefully, this would never happen.

Yes ,there are, once you solve most of the things by artillery, bombing from air, or simply save your effort and use nukes.

Spec ops are used in wars we are seeing in last 60 (or so),years. Those are proxy wars or wars of big players attacking helpless countries. (US on desert country like Iraq,Russia on Georgia, whole NATO on tiny Serbia, Israel on Palestinians which is basically exercise and muscle stretching,...) all of them are conflicts with complete disbalance of power. And that is what I am talking about. If you are strong enough, no one will try to attack you. Nukes are keeping that balance especially if you have small population (for example like Israel).


I am not from US. But policy of using nukes was good move from US perspective. Personally, I would save lives and demonstrate power on some remote place, but situation was specific and there were no enough nukes available in that moment. That move put US as leading military power and secured peace of millions and probably saved lives on allied and Japan side.

And of course nukes were not used , as mentioned above, those are wars when opponent is so weak that you are practically just practicing and marketing own weapons that you will sell later. Tons of money involved in "defense" industry. Bloody business that is pushing US economy.

There was no war on Crimea. How many people died there? Those people wanted to be with Russia and not with broke puppet nazi government.

Welcome to GFY. We are porn webmasters, at least, some of us are. You are probably in the wrong forum. GFY is where you learn about shitcakes and pissing contests.

What the fuck has world wars to do with German army's current purpose? Nothing.

You totally miss the political aspect. Nukes haven't been used since WWII because of political reasons. And you can answer to "Surrender or get nuked." with "No.", in most cases there will be no nukes despite of that answer. Or you can give another ultimatum "If you nuke, we will attack, terrorize, or whatever." Vendetta is no new invention as even the great all mighty nuke power USA has come to realise.

Spec ops are just soldiers and they are used where ever necessary. For example Russian doctrine involves those use againts every opponent. Those are part of the first wave.

USA has had bloody wars and no nukes were used. Korea was far from victory (about half country, half victory) and even Vietnam wasn't any success.

All replied above, but you ignored it. I don't love guns anyway.

Forgot to answer to this. Foreign troops invading and annexing some country or part of it, are always wars even without actual fighting. People also died in there.

I replied to it, not ignored.

No, war is precisely defined and that was no war. If you want to consider something war it is up to you. In a same way you think that army without nukes is serious army. That is your personal view. I've eleaborated all above and lost too much time. Once you started using sentences like " what the fuck", I consider that as lack of arguments.

And when you are asking answer to that, here it is: You told that German army is defensive force and I' ve told it is not and it was involved in attacking other countries in last decades. That is one of things you ignored.

"War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or non-state actors. It is generally characterised by extreme violence, social disruption and economic destruction. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence or intervention. The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war is usually called peace."

Sending troops to another country, taking objectives threatening with violence and asking enemy soldiers to surrender is war to me and to most of humanity. Why would someone ask someone else surrender if there is no conflict? Armies do retreat in wars and those are still called as wars and war movements.

About German army, I am talking about current German army, not some WWII Germany. Do you mean that they have no reason to defend themselves because of some things those happened in WWII? Even Russia (successor of Soviet Union) did attack WWII and did all kinds of shit, but I am not saying that they have no reason or right to prepare to defend themselves. Japan has army too, despite of WWII.

Although he wasn't chased out, the father of our space program was scooped up by the US as soon as victory in Europe. Von Braun was the father and creator of the V-1 and
V-2. he almost alone developed missile technology. he then went on to create the beginning of our modern space program. he wanted to work and do what he could to further science. I can respect his convictions.

http://linkification.com/www/vb.jpg

madagascar: they have pineapples

I've just pasted definition of war but you are telling your opinion. Apply there and give them your own interpretation of war. Once it is official, we can talk. Until then, there were no destruction and killing in Crimea. No war, since people wanted to be saved of war that would come otherwise from nazi government (like there it is now in eastern Ukraine). If you say otherwise, give me example from above definition and show "extreme violence" that is part of every war.

In this moment, what happened in Crimea doesn't fit definition of war. It is described as Crimean Crisis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_crisis So, if you consider that war,I guess you consider Cuban Missle Crisis also war between US and Soviet Union. Silly.

And I am not talking at all about WW2. I am talking about German army taking role and Yugoslavia in 1999 (again like on every 50 years approximately). So, it is not just for country protection as you were telling above. And please show me where I've said Germany don't have right to defend? I ve said no one is planning to attack Germany ( as I am concerned, chances that Germany attack someone are much bigger considering history and role in 1999)

From your own quoted definition of war: "War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or non-state actors."

That is war, taking Crimea was war. Cuban crisis wasn't as there were no actual military actions, there were no annexation or occupation or troop movements on another country's soil.

Some quite small NATO operation and Germany's involvement in it, is not much to speak about. Also I haven't said that Germany's army would be purely defensive force, I said that they have army to defend themselves.

M point was that you put on your compassion jeans and try to relate and put yourself in a mothers situation. if you're not capable you aren't worth the iron in your blood.
these heartbreaking scenarios played themselves out over and over. you dismiss them the same as the Holocaust deniers. maybe you can circle jerk with those disgusting individuals

You seem to forget cold war and Soviet Union's plans to conquer Europe. Some NATO operation doesn't still mean nothing. If you have read even a single western news besides some Russian stuff, you would know that European nations are starting to arm themselves again against the threat of Russia, as it has again shown considerable aggression. So, Soviet threat is now Russian threat, as it was before Soviet. Merrily we go around.

Your example was from woman's perspective and mindset. Men don't think how to explain some madness to executioners, as they know it's no use. Instead of that they think how to eliminate the threat.

In that situation men's body starts to produce big quantities of adrenaline and testosterone, as men ideally prepare to kill. That is how it has been done in the long human history and evolution and that's how it's done today.

No one keeps the mother's situation as good or desireble, but reaction to it is differently.

You know how much slave workers died during building his rockets, and he developed them like a mad man because hitler wanted to bomb the shit out of UK. The man is a nazi, worked for the nazis, built by slaves to bomb cities full of civilians.

The world is full of hypocrites, when someone with a wrap sheet like this can make another (enemy) country millions to billions of dollars, they ignore everything and the president shakes hands with him.

the biggest oil producer

First, It is not my definition of war. I do not consider myself smarter then officials ,like you consider yourself.

That was not war because there were no extreme violence and destruction . You have pasted official definition there but you are saying it is not good one, right? I will repeat (because you deliberately ignored most important thing ) : "...characterised by extreme violence, social disruption and economic destruction...".

So now, go on and show me destruction and extreme violence that happened in Crimea?
Question, why it is defined as crysis and you are only one insisting that is a war?

no military operation? Placing nukes is medical action I guess? Or humanitarian action. US Army Navy blockade was not also military move?


oh..really, nothing to talk about..small maybe for you but for killed people whose parents or grandparents experienced same several times in history it is not small,at all.

As I am concerned, very good indicator what to expect and that is why I've concentrated of your explanation that army is used to protect, but in reality it will be used in wars on other country soil. So with your last statement you basically admitted that you thing army should be used in attack on other countries that are not attacking you and do not have any business with you?

One more thing you skipped: where did I say that Germany (or any other country) have no right to defend itself? (but this is irrelevant now after your last statement) . I've just said that no one is considering attacking Germany (except in your own mind)

Not sure when you last checked your sources, but there is no Soviet Union for more then 20 years. This reminds me of Japanese guy that lived most of his life in Jungle without info that war was over decades ago.

What Russian threat? Russia is surrounded with NATO countries and rocket "shield" pushed under their nose. NATO is organizing military drills with Ukrainians or Georgia and you are talking about Russia threatening someone? How many times Europeans tried to conquer Russia? Crazy...but crazy or not ,there are people like you ignoring facts and calling to arms.

It seems history as teacher is not good enough for you.

I didn't say it's your definition. I said "quoted". The first sentence defines the war. And I am not the only one saying it's war.

There are nukes all over the world, it's not action of war per se. And not all military moves makes a war, but troops invading foreign country makes.


I didn't say army should be used to attack some other countries, that is quite far fetched. I just said that some foreign military operation doesn't exclude the fact that the army is used to protect it's home country.

This conversation starts so be pretty pointless.

I said that Soviet Union is now Russia, as it is. Russia is Soviet Union's legal successor, even with debt and all.

Russian threat, it means military threat from Russia. Russia did attack in WWII to Poland, Baltic countries and to Finland. After WWII Soviet Union did attack to Poland, Hungary and Afghanistan. Recently is has attacked Georgia and Ukraine. Quite enough to say it imposes a threat.

Being "surrounded" by countries and military drills are not attacks. There is nothing wrong to prepare defences or practise.

So if you have article in front of you, you are reading only first sentence, or just one that you like? Definition is several sentences long and all of them are equally important.

I've pasted you link above where it is officially named Crimean Crysis, and not Crimean war.
How do you explain that, especially coming from "western" source?



Who and when tried to conquer country with nukes? Give me example and compare it how many countries without nukes were attacked in last several decades (some with three times bigger army then German now).Show us.


Ok, then explain why Germany needed protection back in 1999 so it went almost 1000 km to bomb?

Not for me, I've responded to every single thing you tried to show in different light and yet I didn't gate answer to all those questions above sent to you.

Easy. USA. we had the best chance of directing the outcome of the war and the next 75 years, as we have done.

It doesn't make sense to look at it as if 1 leader between 1939 and 1945 would have made a difference. We had some of the best leaders ever at that time and everyone still died.

Instead, i look at it as which country would be influential for the future and that country is the USA.

Military threat from Russia is only in brainwashed heads. Who is putting military pressure on Russia but NATO?

When was Russian Georgian war? In 2008.
When US started negotiating with Poland anti balsitic shield? let me save you time: 2002. 6 years before.

Russian attacked Poland in WW2, AFTER germans already did it. So if you are trying to make such conculsions based on historical info, Germany is far greater threat,like it was back in 1914 or 1939 .

US also attacked Afghanistan recently.

How many NATO bases are worldwide and how many Russian?

https://socioecohistory.files.wordpr...tary_bases.jpg

After missing so much info in your logic, there is no use to try to make difference between Soviet Union and Russia. Education is not free. At least not anymore.